Gallup: Majority of Human Race Does Not See Global Warming as Serious Threat
Monday, April 25, 2011
By Terence P. Jeffrey

(CNSNews.com) - Most of the human race does not see global warming as a serious threat, according to a Gallup poll released last week that surveyed individuals in 111 countries.

Respondents were asked: “How serious of a threat is global warming to you and your family?” They were given the options of anwering: not at all serious, not very serious, somewhat serious or very serious.

Worldwide, only 42 percent told Gallup they believed global warming was either a “somewhat serious” or “very serious” threat. Gallup did not publish the separate percentages for each answer.

In the United States, 53 percent said they believed global warming was a “somewhat serious” or “very serious” threat to themselves and their families. That was down from 63 percent in polling that Gallup did on the question in the United States in 2007 and 2008.

Of the 111 countries that Gallup polled, Greece ranked as No.1 for popular fear of global warming. In that southern European country 87 percent said global warming was a “somewhat serious” or “very serious” threat.

Or we will go extinct. It's called natural selection. Your environment is going to change, and if you can't catch up, then it's time for you to go.

So if those 3 inch lizards in new mexico go extince because some oil derrick was built, then I say good riddance.

fettpett

04-26-2011, 12:21 PM

Or we will go extinct. It's called natural selection. Your environment is going to change, and if you can't catch up, then it's time for you to go.

So if those 3 inch lizards in new mexico go extince because some oil derrick was built, then I say good riddance.

got to love the hypocrisy of the eviromentalfucknuts. "we're atheist and believe in Darwinism, but we can't let nature change!!!"

Arroyo_Doble

04-26-2011, 12:22 PM

Or we will go extinct. It's called natural selection. Your environment is going to change, and if you can't catch up, then it's time for you to go.

So if those 3 inch lizards in new mexico go extince because some oil derrick was built, then I say good riddance.

I don't believe in the evolution of oil derricks; I am an advocate of Intelligent Design.

djones520

04-26-2011, 12:26 PM

I don't believe in the evolution of oil derricks; I am an advocate of Intelligent Design.

Animals change the environment as well, and that's all we are. Look at what locusts do when they go through a region. The American Bison was going to eat itself extinct if we hadn't of nearly beaten them to it.

While something like an oil derrick is a bit differant from the norm, animals adapting to another animals change to the environment has been happening since life began. Some did, some didn't.

wilbur

04-26-2011, 12:52 PM

got to love the hypocrisy of the eviromentalfucknuts. "we're atheist and believe in Darwinism, but we can't let nature change!!!"

Who says "change" is a per se bad? No environmentalist I listen too ever says that... because it would be ridiculous. Your adversaries on this issue aren't as dumb as you obviously think. The concern about global warming is about change that might potentially have harmful consequences for human beings.

As for atheism, I think being an atheist might be a strong indicator that one is an environmentalist, but I'm not so sure that goes the other way around.

One reason for that might be, is that on atheism, there is no divine being orchestrating the movements of the planets and solar system in order to facilitate the existence of human life. An atheist must face the possibility head on that no divine being is guiding us along a path that ensures our preservation, till his day of judgement. On atheism, we can go extinct. We could possibly cause our own extinction.

See the video below for a frightening, potentially disastrous type of theistic thinking (but hopefully, both atheists and most Christians know better than this idiot).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7h08RDYA5E

fettpett

04-26-2011, 02:10 PM

Who says "change" is a per se bad? No environmentalist I listen too ever says that... because it would be ridiculous. Your adversaries on this issue aren't as dumb as you obviously think. The concern about global warming is about change that might potentially have harmful consequences for human beings.

As for atheism, I think being an atheist might be a strong indicator that one is an environmentalist, but I'm not so sure that goes the other way around.

One reason for that might be, is that on atheism, there is no divine being orchestrating the movements of the planets and solar system in order to facilitate the existence of human life. An atheist must face the possibility head on that no divine being is guiding us along a path that ensures our preservation, till his day of judgement. On atheism, we can go extinct. We could possibly cause our own extinction.

See the video below for a frightening, potentially disastrous type of theistic thinking (but hopefully, both atheists and most Christians know better than this idiot).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7h08RDYA5E

It's called generalizing and being facetious.

Lager

04-26-2011, 02:29 PM

The concern about global warming is about change that might potentially have harmful consequences for human beings.

"that MIGHT have POTENTIALLY harmful consequences."
Okay, I can live with that. But it's easy to see why elements of the left might take and inflate, exaggerate and propagate that statement purely for political aims. It's precisely because the left has a history of doing just that, (Republicans want to starve children and make Grandma homeless!) that caused many centrists and conservatives to take up such a strong opposing view. So we end up with an issue that leaves the truth possibly clouded by both sides.

Pulpfishin

04-26-2011, 02:50 PM

Your adversaries on this issue aren't as dumb as you obviously think.

Actually, they are pretty freaking stupid.

Every study/theory they present as "fact" gets dissected by legitimate scientists. And EVERY SINGLE ONE is/has been proven to be unsubstantiated, unrepeatable, and unverifiable

The concern about global warming is about change that might potentially have harmful consequences for human beings.

Once again, you are dead wrong.

The concern about global warming is how to keep the public terrified, the grant funding and green energy subsidies flowing in, and how to keep the truth hidden.

Wei Wu Wei

04-26-2011, 04:43 PM

Animals change the environment as well, and that's all we are.

this is true.

hell it was a bunch of marine plants like algea that pumped all the oxygen into the atmosphere that makes our own life possible.

Wei Wu Wei

04-26-2011, 04:46 PM

got to love the hypocrisy of the eviromentalfucknuts. "we're atheist and believe in Darwinism, but we can't let nature change!!!"

i think the problem is nature changing faster than we can adapt to it.

there's no moral conundrum about the earth changing, hell since the beginning it's been nothing but a bunch of catastrophic accidents that radically changed everything, several times wiping out nearly all life on the planet.

nature is crazy, it does what it does, and human activity is part of that nature, and we might be one of these natural disasters. just because it's "natural" doesn't mean it's desirable.

Nubs

04-26-2011, 04:54 PM

]i think the problem is nature changing faster than we can adapt to it.[/B]there's no moral conundrum about the earth changing, hell since the beginning it's been nothing but a bunch of catastrophic accidents that radically changed everything, several times wiping out nearly all life on the planet.

nature is crazy, it does what it does, and human activity is part of that nature, and we might be one of these natural disasters. just because it's "natural" doesn't mean it's desirable.

Lost faith in Darwin??

Darwinism is based on the premise that thise who do not adapt DIE. So, to meld your belief with Darwin, we are not dying off fast enough? To follow Darwin, we must accept extinction if we fail to adapt. To manipulate nature in order to prevent the evolution of man within the natural environment, is an abhoration of Faith in Darwin.

malloc

04-26-2011, 05:03 PM

nature is crazy, it does what it does, and human activity is part of that nature, and we might be one of these natural disasters. just because it's "natural" doesn't mean it's desirable.

I think most rational people see the proposition of man made global warming a lot differently than the enviro-wackjob faithful, and the left wing politicians who want use this "disaster" for political gain. The rational majority knows that the significant change required to reverse supposed AGW effects is going to be extremely detrimental to individual standard living, and as a consequence, the entire modern society we've built. This "green" jobs, "green" energy and "green" economy via legislation is farce, and rational people understand this. An economy must evolve, and evolution cannot be coerced. Therefore the rational public know that AGW is going to have to be proven beyond a doubt and 100% confirmed before they are going to sacrifice their civilization to the environmental movement. It's like making the decision to abandon ship in the Arctic. The ship must be absolutely, 100% unsalvagable and sinking before anyone will accept the decision because once the decision is made, people are going to die, and the ship will be lost, and there won't be any going back. Since the issue has been politicized and scandals surrounding the politicization of the science has been uncovered, I don't think rational people are ever going to be convinced that their standard of living needs to be sacrificed so one party can gain power to push and agenda.

Wei Wu Wei

04-26-2011, 05:08 PM

Lost faith in Darwin??

Darwinism is based on the premise that thise who do not adapt DIE. So, to meld your belief with Darwin, we are not dying off fast enough? To follow Darwin, we must accept extinction if we fail to adapt. To manipulate nature in order to prevent the evolution of man within the natural environment, is an abhoration of Faith in Darwin.

lol no

Wei Wu Wei

04-26-2011, 05:16 PM

I think most rational people see the proposition of man made global warming a lot differently than the enviro-wackjob faithful, and the left wing politicians who want use this "disaster" for political gain. The rational majority knows that the significant change required to reverse supposed AGW effects is going to be extremely detrimental to individual standard living, and as a consequence, the entire modern society we've built. This "green" jobs, "green" energy and "green" economy via legislation is farce, and rational people understand this. An economy must evolve, and evolution cannot be coerced. Therefore the rational public know that AGW is going to have to be proven beyond a doubt and 100% confirmed before they are going to sacrifice their civilization to the environmental movement. It's like making the decision to abandon ship in the Arctic. The ship must be absolutely, 100% unsalvagable and sinking before anyone will accept the decision because one the decision is made, people are going to die, and the ship will be lost, and there won't be any going back. Since the issue has been politicized and scandals surrounding the politicization of the science has been uncovered, I don't think rational people are ever going to be convinced that their standard of living needs to be sacrificed so one party can gain power to push and agenda.

I think even if it's proven 99.9999% of the way, people still won't act to fix it.

It's too radical, our species and our brains are not equipped for large scale changes happening so rapidly.

Many people accept that global warming is a problem and maybe even that it's too late to fix it, but no one really believes it, it's hard to believe that all of this could simply go away.

This is called disavowal, where we can rationally accept the evidence about global warming, but because both the consequences and the solution are so radical, we don't really believe it. We behave as if we don't know it, even though we say we do. "I know very well, but..."

basically we're screwed

a few extra points: I really dislike the liberal environmentalist picture of the world that nature is this harmonious balanced place that humans have ruined with our actions and the answer is to reduce our impact as much as possible. No, nature is crazy as shit, Earth and nature have been one long story of unimaginable catastrophes and mass extinctions.

Also, I think it's wrong to conceive of humans as outside of nature, interfering and messing it up.

Also, this idea of "green capitalism" will not work, green jobs aren't enough, even strict environmental regulations that will never get passed because they hurt big industries might not be enough. The sad part is instead of trying to fix the problem now, we may end up in 50-60 years trying to pick up all the pieces.

wilbur

04-26-2011, 05:22 PM

Lost faith in Darwin??

Darwinism is based on the premise that thise who do not adapt DIE. So, to meld your belief with Darwin, we are not dying off fast enough? To follow Darwin, we must accept extinction if we fail to adapt. To manipulate nature in order to prevent the evolution of man within the natural environment, is an abhoration of Faith in Darwin.

Hahhaha, dude..... put down the crack pipe.

txradioguy

04-26-2011, 05:27 PM

It's called generalizing and being facetious.

You have to remember that to be a Libtard like rubliw...you have to have your sense of humor removed.

wilbur

04-26-2011, 05:38 PM

I think even if it's proven 99.9999% of the way, people still won't act to fix it.

It's too radical, our species and our brains are not equipped for large scale changes happening so rapidly.

Yep - this is called the Normalcy Bias. Its documented, studied - and real. We're far more likely than not, to be irrationally dismissive about the possibilities of future large scale disasters, even when the evidence is conclusive and should be persuasive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias

The normalcy bias refers to a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects. This often results in situations where people fail to adequately prepare for a disaster, and on a larger scale, the failure of the government to include the populace in its disaster preparations. The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred then it never will occur. It also results in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.

We see it all the time... the economy, Japan, Katrina, and yes..... global warming.

Odysseus

04-26-2011, 06:30 PM

Animals change the environment as well, and that's all we are. Look at what locusts do when they go through a region.
Or how Obama governs, for that matter. :D

Lost faith in Darwin??

Darwinism is based on the premise that thise who do not adapt DIE. So, to meld your belief with Darwin, we are not dying off fast enough?

Do people ever die off fast enough for a communist?

Lager

04-27-2011, 05:24 PM

Yep - this is called the Normalcy Bias. Its documented, studied - and real. We're far more likely than not, to be irrationally dismissive about the possibilities of future large scale disasters, even when the evidence is conclusive and should be persuasive.

This is called disavowal, where we can rationally accept the evidence about global warming, but because both the consequences and the solution are so radical, we don't really believe it. We behave as if we don't know it, even though we say we do. "I know very well, but..."

That's real cute that you guys were actually able to present these official sounding terms to explain why people who don't agree with you are so stupid. But if "disavowal" and "Normalcy bias" are so prevalent and documented etc. how did you two manage to avoid being affected? I'm really interested in hearing your explanations. I mean there are people here with the same education levels as yourselves, or perhaps even higher, so how did you two avoid the trap of this illogical, but well studied way of thinking? Are you going to tell us that these symptoms only affect conservatives?

Lager

04-27-2011, 05:31 PM

I think most rational people see the proposition of man made global warming a lot differently than the enviro-wackjob faithful, and the left wing politicians who want use this "disaster" for political gain. The rational majority knows that the significant change required to reverse supposed AGW effects is going to be extremely detrimental to individual standard living, and as a consequence, the entire modern society we've built. This "green" jobs, "green" energy and "green" economy via legislation is farce, and rational people understand this. An economy must evolve, and evolution cannot be coerced. Therefore the rational public know that AGW is going to have to be proven beyond a doubt and 100% confirmed before they are going to sacrifice their civilization to the environmental movement. It's like making the decision to abandon ship in the Arctic. The ship must be absolutely, 100% unsalvagable and sinking before anyone will accept the decision because once the decision is made, people are going to die, and the ship will be lost, and there won't be any going back. Since the issue has been politicized and scandals surrounding the politicization of the science has been uncovered, I don't think rational people are ever going to be convinced that their standard of living needs to be sacrificed so one party can gain power to push and agenda.

That's a damn fine post. Which means it won't be seriously rebutted by our friends on the left. For as much as they talk about how irrational those are who don't agree 100 percent with the seriousness of man made climate change, I don't think I've ever heard them say what they are willing to sacrifice right now. Since they are unaffected by bias on the issue and see things so clearly, I wonder what adjustments they've made in their lives. Do you think their computers are solar powered?

wilbur

04-27-2011, 05:49 PM

That's real cute that you guys were actually able to present these official sounding terms to explain why people who don't agree with you are so stupid.

I'm not calling anyone stupid - these are biases that affect everybody... they are facts of the matter of human nature.

But if "disavowal" and "Normalcy bias" are so prevalent and documented etc. how did you two manage to avoid being affected?

Just being aware that the bias exists can help.

Wei Wu Wei

04-27-2011, 05:53 PM

That's real cute that you guys were actually able to present these official sounding terms to explain why people who don't agree with you are so stupid. But if "disavowal" and "Normalcy bias" are so prevalent and documented etc. how did you two manage to avoid being affected? I'm really interested in hearing your explanations. I mean there are people here with the same education levels as yourselves, or perhaps even higher, so how did you two avoid the trap of this illogical, but well studied way of thinking? Are you going to tell us that these symptoms only affect conservatives?

I didn't avoid it. These are psychological phenomenon that affect just about everyone.

Being able to describe a psychological phenomenon doesn't make one excluded from it, I never claimed that. Even the psychologists who do this research (and I've done psych research like this) engage in disavowal and normalcy bias in their personal lives.

Knowing how the human mind works, including the way it doesn't work the way we want it to, doesn't mean you are above it. No one has perfect self-knowledge, there is always more that you are not aware of about yourself than you are aware of.

This is why psychotherapists and psychoanalysts (who know very well about the foibles of the human mind) often require and undergo therapy or analysis themselves, because they cannot "see their own blindspots" so to speak, even if they understand how blindspots work.

wilbur

04-27-2011, 06:17 PM

Just couldnt resist after Lager issued the challenge...

I think most rational people see the proposition of man made global warming a lot differently than the enviro-wackjob faithful, and the left wing politicians who want use this "disaster" for political gain. The rational majority knows that the significant change required to reverse supposed AGW effects is going to be extremely detrimental to individual standard living, and as a consequence, the entire modern society we've built.

Rational people also recognize that the consequences of global warming could be as, or more, costly than proposed (or potential) strategies for mitigation.

Rational people recognize that while there is lots of irrational hype surrounding those buzzwords (like all buzzwords), there is some legitimacy to those concepts, and that there really is some value in all of them.

An economy must evolve, and evolution cannot be coerced.

Therefore the rational public know that AGW is going to have to be proven beyond a doubt and 100% confirmed before they are going to sacrifice their civilization to the environmental movement.

Rational people know that arguments in the form of "P, therefore Q" are not valid arguments.

It's like making the decision to abandon ship in the Arctic. The ship must be absolutely, 100% unsalvagable and sinking before anyone will accept the decision because one the decision is made, people are going to die, and the ship will be lost, and there won't be any going back. Since the issue has been politicized and scandals surrounding the politicization of the science has been uncovered, I don't think rational people are ever going to be convinced that their standard of living needs to be sacrificed so one party can gain power to push and agenda.

Rational people would recoil in horror at this paragraph, and are aware of at least some of the basic precepts of risk management. They use to their fullest capability, everything they have in their rationalist toolkit to anticipate possible outcomes and all their associated costs and benefits. They weigh the costs and the benefits of those various scenarios in their decision making process.

Nowhere in the rationalist toolkit will you find the phrase "100% confirmed".

Odysseus

04-27-2011, 06:34 PM

Rational people would recoil in horror at this paragraph, and are aware of at least some of the basic precepts of risk management. They use to their fullest capability, everything they have in their rationalist toolkit to anticipate possible outcomes and all their associated costs and benefits. They weigh the costs and the benefits of those various scenarios in their decision making process.

Nowhere in the rationalist toolkit will you find the phrase "100% confirmed".

Since the rational people of your acquaintance seem to be concentrated on CU, and we wouldn't recoil in horror at that paragraph, you might want to rethink your premise.

The Global Warming phenomenon is, at best, highly debatable, but the political agenda of the warmistas is not. They have repeatedly stated that they wish to redistribute wealth, and the evidence of their science is highly suspect, due to the deliberate destruction of data and lack of transparency among those entrusted with the science.

malloc

04-27-2011, 06:55 PM

Just couldnt resist after Lager issued the challenge...

Well, I see your days of rising to challenges have certainly come to a rather dull start.

Rational people also recognize that the consequences of global warming could be as, or more costly than proposed (or potential) strategies for mitigation.

Your understanding of rational, while amusing, is not at all accurate. Rational is defined as, "based in accordance with reason or logic". It is not logical for one who claims to be rational to accept the current hypotheses proposed by the AGW crowd since those hypotheses are far from proven, and saturated with politicization and scandal.

Rational people recognize that while there is lots of irrational hype (like all buzzwords), there is some legitimacy to these concepts, and that there really is some value in all of those things.

This is completely wrong. Most thinking people believe there may be some legitimacy to the concepts, not that there is legitimacy in the concepts. That fact may very well be the reason this poll swung the way it did, and why true believers like yourself cannot come to grip with its results. You cannot fathom the fact that you do not live in an echo chamber on this issue, and you simply refuse to believe that many more rational people see the concept of AGW as improbable over probable, or in your case, God's honest gospel.

Rational people know that arguments in the form of "P, therefore Q" are not valid arguments.

It seems everyone understood this simple, abbreviated modus ponens. You did not. I wonder why that is? I also wonder why you think it is an invalid argument merely because it was presented?

Rational people would recoil in horror at this paragraph, and are aware of at least some of the basic precepts of risk management. They use to their fullest capability, all information available to them to predict possible outcomes and their costs... and then weigh the costs and the benefits of those various scenarios.

Nowhere in the rationalist toolkit will you find the phrase "100% certain".

Only those in your echo chamber, who you believe to be rational simply because they agree with you, would recoil in horror. The rest of us know that this is simple, applied risk management. You don't see it, because you are already set on the reverse. The cost of addressing what AGW could be is simply too high for the rational person to consider paying, based on the incomplete, corrupted "science" that has been repeatedly pushed, refuted, and scandalized. It's pretty basic risk management actually. Your idea of risk seems to be, if there is any risk, mitigate it at all costs, and that is not rational at all.

obx

04-27-2011, 07:22 PM

In NC, where I live, the climate changes about four times a year. It has ever since I was a child. Not only that, for half the year the sun goes down earlier and earlier every day. Then it reverses and the days get longer every day for six months. I am sure Al Gore will find some kind of imbalance in the earth and show it is because of something humans have done. How could I have been so blind?

Wei Wu Wei

04-27-2011, 08:10 PM

In NC, where I live, the climate changes about four times a year. It has ever since I was a child. Not only that, for half the year the sun goes down earlier and earlier every day. Then it reverses and the days get longer every day for six months. I am sure Al Gore will find some kind of imbalance in the earth and show it is because of something humans have done. How could I have been so blind?

nice joke attempt but come on

the difference between climate and weather is elementary

wilbur

04-27-2011, 10:21 PM

Wilbur, I'd like you to clarify something for me.

I'm pretty sure in the past, you've said that you would be opposed to legislation (i.e. Cap and Trade) geared towards "fixing" climate change at taxpayer expense. Did I read that right? I'm not going for a "gotcha" here, just curious.

I'm not per se opposed to the idea - cap & trade has been situationally successful in curbing some forms of pollution in a cost effective manner.

But I'm highly skeptical that it will work, or be more than a money grab, when it comes to reducing carbon output (see last cap & trade bill written by goldman sachs) - or that our resources arent better spent on other types of solutions, like carbon sequestering.

wilbur

04-28-2011, 01:04 AM

Well, I see your days of rising to challenges have certainly come to a rather dull start.

Your understanding of rational, while amusing, is not at all accurate. Rational is defined as, "based in accordance with reason or logic". It is not logical for one who claims to be rational to accept the current hypotheses proposed by the AGW crowd since those hypotheses are far from proven, and saturated with politicization and scandal.

Seriously man... with a nick like malloc you should be better than this. There isnt a single proven scientific theory, or law that exists, period. There certainly are theories which have not been disproved (and that have clear, attainable criteria for falsification) - and AGW is among them. There certainly is enough credible evidence to be sufficiently worried about it.

Again, your missing a fundamental piece of risk management... as the cost of a possible disaster increases, the threshold at which to enact mitigation decreases. You can have potential disasters which are hugely improbable, yet still rationally demand some forms of mitigation/prevention, etc.

Now, in the case of global warming, the potential costs of disaster, and costs of mitigation are both extremely high. But I do think this narrow focus on things like cap&trade style policies misses the bigger picture. Its not hard to see that there are many potential ways, other than drastic economic policy, that could be far cheaper, and possibly more effective. Incidentally, that's where I think we should focus most of our efforts..... not broad, all-encompassing international economic treaties/policies. Technology is our best bet, in my book - not legislation.

In any case, it does great harm to irrational deny it all-together... the right is just as agenda driven as the left on this issue, they certainly have no advantage there. And lets not forget... the *only* reason all the proposed solutions seem so left-wing, is because the right wing has decided not to play. They can't get past the denial stage.

Anyhow... tired.

malloc

04-28-2011, 03:44 PM

Seriously man... with a nick like malloc you should be better than this. There isnt a single proven scientific theory, or law that exists, period. There certainly are theories which have not been disproved (and that have clear, attainable criteria for falsification) - and AGW is among them.

Semantics? Really? I hope this isn't the cornerstone of your counter-argument. That is usually proof positive that an argument is flimsy. We are discussing the majority's perception of the science, not the science itself, so proper scientific terminology isn't at all important. Nice try at a "gotcha" moment though, for all the impact those "gotcha" moments really have in an argument.

There certainly is enough credible evidence to be sufficiently worried about it.

Obviously there isn't, because there are plenty, even a majority in this poll, of rational people who are not worried. That means there could be not enough evidence, or the evidence isn't credible or hundreds of other likely combinations. You see, what you don't understand Wilbur is that Climategate had, and is still having, a huge impact on the public at large. The people in the little AGW cults brushed it off, and pretended like it was no big deal. To people who aren't blind followers of the AGW religion, it was a huge deal. The popular perception, and my opinion as well, is that AGW couldn't make a convincing case without resorting to trickery and dishonesty.

Again, your missing a fundamental piece of risk management... as the cost of a possible disaster increases, the threshold at which to enact mitigation decreases. You can have potential disasters which are hugely improbable, yet still rationally demand some forms of mitigation/prevention, etc.

Now, in the case of global warming, the potential costs of disaster, and costs of mitigation are both extremely high. But I do think this narrow focus on things like cap&trade style policies misses the bigger picture. Its not hard to see that there are many potential ways, other than drastic economic policy, that could be far cheaper, and possibly more effective. Incidentally, that's where I think we should focus most of our efforts..... not broad, all-encompassing international economic treaties/policies. Technology is our best bet, in my book - not legislation.

I'm not missing any parts in my risk management analysis. You are giving the cost factors too much weight. The cost of a possible disaster, and the cost of it's mitigation are two factors that are to be evaluated in the shadow of the probability of a catastrophic occurrence and in comparison with the urgency of the time frame. You are ignoring the real probability and the time frame in your risk management analysis. In your mind, the probability is approaching 1 and the time of occurrence is "tomorrow the caps are going to melt!", so you are looking at the costs because you've dismissed the other factors.

I'm glad to see that you aren't supportive of cap & trade, because cap & trade is a tool for economic tyranny, not clean air or lower emissions or whatever it's called. You are also absolutely correct about technology. Look back 50 years. How much more efficient is, well everything that uses energy today when compared to an equivalent product from 50 years ago. Efficiency is profitable. Eco-moonbats deny this, and somehow want "green" everything "right now!". What they don't understand is that it is impossible to coerce innovation.

Wei Wu Wei

04-28-2011, 03:53 PM

Semantics? Really? I hope this isn't the cornerstone of your counter-argument. That is usually proof positive that an argument is flimsy. We are discussing the majority's perception of the science, not the science itself, so proper scientific terminology isn't at all important

The majority of people are scientifically illiterate.

Obviously there isn't, because there are plenty, even a majority in this poll, of rational people who are not worried. That means there could be not enough evidence, or the evidence isn't credible or hundreds of other likely combinations. You see, what you don't understand Wilbur is that Climategate had, and is still having, a huge impact on the public at large. The people in the little AGW cults brushed it off, and pretended like it was no big deal. To people who aren't blind followers of the AGW religion, it was a huge deal. The popular perception, and my opinion as well, is that AGW couldn't make a convincing case without resorting to trickery and dishonesty.

Humans aren't Rational Actors.

Just because there is an overwhelming majority of evidence and rational support doesn't mean that people will accept it. There are so many instances where the human mind behaves irrationally, it's fundamentally an irrational thing.

There are many explanations, psychological phenomenon that are well documented that show this.

malloc

04-28-2011, 04:03 PM

The majority of people are scientifically illiterate.
Humans aren't Rational Actors.

Your entire argument is, "people who disagree with me are stupid"? You should be humiliated for even proposing such a thing, but I'm not sure you have the capacity to understand how ridiculous the idea is.

Just because there is an overwhelming majority of evidence and rational support doesn't mean that people will accept it. There are so many instances where the human mind behaves irrationally, it's fundamentally an irrational thing.

There are many explanations, psychological phenomenon that are well documented that show this.

If the human mind were irrational, that would mean everyone with a mind is irrational, how ever did we survive as a species? How did we develop complex economies, technologies, traditions, cultures and nations? Did communists and eco-moonbats do all of this for the benefit of their stupid, knuckle dragging brethren? That small portion of society that you believe is rational because they agree with you, is the irrational portion of society.

Sonnabend

04-29-2011, 06:37 PM

Another Wilbur lie. The evidence is NOT conclusive. Wilbur lies, Jones lied.

We don't believe it because we have heard it all before. It was BS then and it's BS now.